Pope endorses Argentine bishops' document on Amoris Laetitia

[Jon_S_1]

What?
An invalid marriage IS committing adultery. You can’t repent from a sin, and remain in it.

That’s a silly debate.

Only if the marriage can be reglarized or valid would they be able to remain together, right?

Do you know the three conditions for grave matter to become mortal sin?

Full knowledge and full consent in areas of grave matter.

Any 1 piece is missing and the matter is venial.

You are saying someone that lacked consent or knowledge or both is commiting the mortal sin of adultery.

Why?

So someone who has no knowledge or consent and gets remarried then later realizes they were wrong what are they to do?

Divorce the second wife? Abandon the children? Stop having marital relations?

The third question while noble, is not practical particularly if one spouse is not Catholic or does not believe Catholic teaching.

This is the only sin that is disciplined this way.

No one tells the guy that went and got a vasectomy and then later repented that he is now in a state of perpetually being closed to life and therefore he can never have sex again without it being mortal sin.

 

[rcwitness]

I think you should not take for granted your premises.

But if it is so cut and dry, you should be able to provide countless sources to support it.

Should you actually choose to do this exercise and search through church history you will find a church that relegated marriage to the civil authority completely.

A church that when it did speak of marriage it was merely to say it was an obstacle to Christian virtue.

A church that slowly over time developed a theology of marriage.

A church that did not perform marriages for the first 1000 years.

And you will not find the church saying there is zero way a person in a second marriage can receive the sacraments.

Will they say remarriage is a sin. Yes

Will they say it is adultery. Yes (although some like Augustine allow for divorce and remarriage for certain reasons).

Will they say one is never allowed again to receive the sacraments no matter what the circumstance of the situation? No.

So did the Church (for your 1000 yrs) specify each serious sin, and whether one can receive Communion without stopping it?

To me, Scripture is very clear (especially St Paul) regarding divorce and remarriage. The only thing that Church interpretation clarified was how to understand and apply the “porneia” clause.

I, personally, would not receive Communion if I had entered an adulterous relationship and did not repent. I don’t need the Church to affirm that for me.

 

[rcwitness]

Do you know the three conditions for grave matter to become mortal sin?

Full knowledge and full consent in areas of grave matter.

Any 1 piece is missing and the matter is venial.

You are saying someone that lacked consent or knowledge or both is commiting the mortal sin of adultery.

Why?

No I am not. I am saying the Church is not always wise about educating people about entering a sinful marriage, but if someone finds themselves in one, they should seek Reconciliation and repent… even if that means living no longer as a husband and wife. But if there is a path to validating that marriage, then good.

So someone who has no knowledge or consent and gets remarried then later realizes they were wrong what are they to do?

Divorce the second wife? Abandon the children? Stop having marital relations?

The third question while noble, is not practical particularly if one spouse is not Catholic or does not believe Catholic teaching.

This is the only sin that is disciplined this way.

No one tells the guy that went and got a vasectomy and then later repented that he is now in a state of perpetually being closed to life and therefore he can never have sex again without it being mortal sin.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Jon, it’s about an invalid remarriage, which becomes adultery. Do you think there is no excommunication for evident and unrepentant adultery?

Those who are divorced and remarried are not excommunicated. That is a canonical penalty. It does not apply to the divorced and remarried.

 

[JimG]

Can you please show me one piece of evidence from the first 1000 years of the church that demonstrates those who are remarried could not receive the Eucharist.

Also, I have posted twice a link to a first things article that describes in detail how FC and AL are not just reconciled but completely unified.

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/09/crime-punishment-and-amoris-laetitia

I think you do not understand clearly the difference between doctrine and discipline.

I was reading the linked article from First Things. There seems to be a lot of ambiguity in everything I read about this matter. Here is an excerpt from the linked article.

“But I have to balance out my defense of Buttiglione’s position by acknowledging some serious deficiencies in Amoris Laetitia. Very troubling is the way in which Amoris Laetitia seems to drop the ancient requirement that the divorced and remarried, if they continue to lead a common life, have to aim at living as brother and sister. This requirement is in urgent need of being reaffirmed, as I think Buttiglione would agree. But Buttiglione would say that this deficiency in Amoris Laetitia is not fatal to the fundamental idea that many find in it, namely that the Church should give greater attention to the subjective condition of sinners, and should then draw from this the pastoral and disciplinary consequences.”

Jesus himself seems to have developed a theology of marriage in just a few sentences to his apostles about marriage, divorce, and adultery.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I was reading the linked article from First Things. There seems to be a lot of ambiguity in everything I read about this matter. Here is an excerpt from the linked article.

“But I have to balance out my defense of Buttiglione’s position by acknowledging some serious deficiencies in Amoris Laetitia. Very troubling is the way in which Amoris Laetitia seems to drop the ancient requirement that the divorced and remarried, if they continue to lead a common life, have to aim at living as brother and sister. This requirement is in urgent need of being reaffirmed, as I think Buttiglione would agree. But Buttiglione would say that this deficiency in Amoris Laetitia is not fatal to the fundamental idea that many find in it, namely that the Church should give greater attention to the subjective condition of sinners, and should then draw from this the pastoral and disciplinary consequences.”

Jesus himself seems to have developed a theology of marriage in just a few sentences to his apostles about marriage, divorce, and adultery.

No one is saying it’s not grave matter.

What is discussed is pastorally how does one aid people in repentance and in returning to a life in Christ. That is the discipline of the church and is at the full judgement of the church to apply as she seems prudent.

 

[KSU]

Why do you think I would have an aim of persuading these scholars, prelates, and clergy? That is not remotely my task. It does not concern me.

** But my friend, don’t you realize that you give every appearance of making it your task and concern by your repeated attempts to persuade me that I am wrong when I echo some of their points.

BTW, long before their extremely respectful petition was delivered, because of the confusion on the issue resulting from the shocking Kasper proposal (so called) during the Synod, about 800,000 people, including 202 Bishops, signed a petition to Pope Francis seeking clarification of Church teaching on Communion to people in irregular marriages. **

They have petitioned the Pope. He is quite capable of telling them what they are to do with their concerns.

** Wow.**

It is their obligation, pure and simple, to obey.

** Not without attempting to understand what it is they are to obey. That is the right of every Catholic; especially scholars, prelates, and clergy. Our Lord did not create us as unthinking robots; he gave us reason and conscience for a reason.**

Besides, they are largely unknown. They have not sought my counsel.

** They are Catholic prelates, scholars, professors, authors, and clergy from various pontifical universities, seminaries, colleges, theological institutes, religious orders, and dioceses around the world.**

.

 

[rcwitness]

Those who are divorced and remarried are not excommunicated. That is a canonical penalty. It does not apply to the divorced and remarried.

Yes, thank you. I should not have used that term. I meant “expected to refrain from receiving Communion”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

When people view the sin as what it really is it is much simpler.

The sin is the one time act of remarrying.

The idea of continuous adultery is an idea that was put forth from trying to discuss why remarriage is sinful.

Whether someone is committing adultery every time they have sex with their invalidly contracted spouse is extremely suspect and up for debate.

One would find no such teaching in the first probably 1300 or more years of the church.

It is the result of “defining too much”. A critique often leveled on us by the orthodox that is probably with some merit.

So turning away from sin can really mean realizing contracting a second marriage was wrong, repenting of it, and vowing to never do that again.

An excellent insight… and indeed the main import of FamCon.

The primary objective disorder that has up until now barred remarried couples from Communion is not so much the alleged sexual adultery…but rather their remarried state.
It contradicts Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.
Which also explains why those living as brother and sister still may not receive public Communion.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I guess illustrating the contradictions between 2,000 years of Church teaching and current teaching is fruitless (see post #138 quoting FM and contrast with AL)…no attempt to assist in reconciling FM with AL…just deny there is any contradiction, or claim it’s a development of doctrine.

It’s okay to re-interpret or gloss over what past popes and continual practice of Church has been, just don’t question how current teaching agrees with past teaching because it means you are not accepting current teaching… Besides, you are only a lay person, not theologically trained, couldn’t possibly understand the complexities, are voicing personal views, are self-righteously interfering, ignoring the fact that the Holy Spirit directly guides the current Pope, etc…

I received the message loud and clear.

May the good Lord forgive us our trespasses, whether voluntary or involuntary, and may we all meet again in the Blessed Kingdom where the sound of festive rejoicing never ceases!

Kyrie this is not a balanced view of the advice you were offered.
May I offer you the counsel Aquinas realised towards the end of his life.
With wisdom comes grief.
That is, to understand more deeply we must let go of our youthful certainties and long held assumptions. Yes, that can be very painful, hence the willingness to face grief in the ongoing pursuit of truth is a must. Not everybody is able to rise to that challenge.

 

[tseleehw]

When people view the sin as what it really is it is much simpler.

The sin is the one time act of remarrying.

The idea of continuous adultery is an idea that was put forth from trying to discuss why remarriage is sinful.

Whether someone is committing adultery every time they have sex with their invalidly contracted spouse is extremely suspect and up for debate.

One would find no such teaching in the first probably 1300 or more years of the church.

So wait, having sex with someone you are not validly married to is not a sin (or even grave matter)?

 

[Jon_S_1]

So wait, having sex with someone you are not validly married to is not a sin (or even grave matter)?

I have repeated on here it is grave matter.

That does not mean it is a mortal sin. If there was any impedimate to their consent or knowledge then it is in fact venial.

The reason communion was barred to these couples according to Familiaris Consortio was due to Potential scandal, not adultery per se.

I’d argue our annulment system is far more scandalous then the proposal in Amoris Laetitia

 

[tseleehw]

I have repeated on here it is grave matter.

That does not mean it is a mortal sin. If there was any impedimate to their consent or knowledge then it is in fact venial.

The reason communion was barred to these couples according to Familiaris Consortio was due to Potential scandal, not adultery per se.

I’d argue our annulment system is far more scandalous then the proposal in Amoris Laetitia

Thanks for the clarification, though I will say that as far as the annulment process goes, there has to be some way to determine whether or not a marriage is valid. The Church could just say “forget about it, we’re not investigating your marriage, it’s valid and that’s that.” It is interesting that marriage is the only sacrament in the Church that has a whole system in place for determining whether or not the sacrament was for real. Unless there’s some kind of “annulment” system in place for one of the other sacraments that I’m not aware of (maybe Holy Orders, but I’ve never heard of it if it exists).

 

[Jon_S_1]

Thanks for the clarification, though I will say that as far as the annulment process goes, there has to be some way to determine whether or not a marriage is valid. The Church could just say “forget about it, we’re not investigating your marriage, it’s valid and that’s that.” It is interesting that marriage is the only sacrament in the Church that has a whole system in place for determining whether or not the sacrament was for real. Unless there’s some kind of “annulment” system in place for one of the other sacraments that I’m not aware of (maybe Holy Orders, but I’ve never heard of it if it exists).

Yes, I wouldn’t say the annulment process itself is scandalous but it is how it is being used and the amount of invalid marriages that is scandalous.

I help a lot of RCIAers that need annulments. It’s almost unheard of that they do not receive them.

 

[tseleehw]

Yes, I wouldn’t say the annulment process itself is scandalous but it is how it is being used and the amount of invalid marriages that is scandalous.

I help a lot of RCIAers that need annulments. It’s almost unheard of that they do not receive them.

Yes, I do not doubt that what you say is true.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, I wouldn’t say the annulment process itself is scandalous but it is how it is being used and the amount of invalid marriages that is scandalous.

I help a lot of RCIAers that need annulments. It’s almost unheard of that they do not receive them.

I agree with this. It becomes a serious question of what the difference is with common divorce.

I have trouble accepting that Jesus’ clause of “porneia” fits all the annulments.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thanks for the clarification, though I will say that as far as the annulment process goes, there has to be some way to determine whether or not a marriage is valid. The Church could just say “forget about it, we’re not investigating your marriage, it’s valid and that’s that.” It is interesting that marriage is the only sacrament in the Church that has a whole system in place for determining whether or not the sacrament was for real. Unless there’s some kind of “annulment” system in place for one of the other sacraments that I’m not aware of (maybe Holy Orders, but I’ve never heard of it if it exists).

Yes, of course there is.

Competent ecclesiastical authority regularly determines, having investigated, when attempted conferral of baptism is null, sometimes by pronouncement from the Holy See and other times at lesser levels.

Conferral of Confirmation can also be found to be null by investigation of competent ecclesiastical authority, if for example can. 887 is violated. I had an 887 case that I had to investigate, actually. It was sad.

And so forth with other sacraments.

There is indeed a process concerning Sacred Order…it is rarely had recourse to.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Ignore the misleading headlines: the remarried cannot ‘now receive Communion’

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/09/19/ignore-the-misleading-headlines-the-remarried-cannot-now-receive-communion/

 

[rcwitness]

Ignore the misleading headlines: the remarried cannot ‘now receive Communion’

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/09/19/ignore-the-misleading-headlines-the-remarried-cannot-now-receive-communion/

good article…

 

[Brendan]

I have repeated on here it is grave matter.

That does not mean it is a mortal sin. If there was any impedimate to their consent or knowledge then it is in fact venial.

I understand that, but it still the act of adultery where at least one of the persons is in a valid marriage. Where neither party is in a valid marriage, the act is fornication. The level of culpability to the act is a separate question.